I don't suppose it will ever end--the mainstream media will continue to cover trials involving deadly force, will continue to blindly label them Stand-Your-Ground cases, and will continue to demonstrate its utter ignorance of what Stand-Your-Ground actually is.
The most recent example comes in the form of
a Stand-Your-Ground piece written by a David Love, whose bio describes him as: "David A. Love is a writer based in Philadelphia. His work has appeared on CNN and been published by The Grio, The Progressive, and The Guardian." Looks impressive, no?
Well, maybe the bio does. The piece on Stand-Your-Ground? Not so much.
I realize that David is almost certainly not responsible for the headline of the post, but let's start there--after all, it's how the piece is introduced to the reading public.
It's also where the piece goes immediately off the rails: "These are the States That Have 'Stand Your Ground' Laws." This point is then helpfully illustrated, literally, with a graphic image of the United States color coded to indicate which states qualify as "Stand-Your-Ground" states: red-states are purportedly SYG, blue-states are purportedly non-SYG. (That image is the featured pic at the top of this post. Interestingly, it was sourced in the Love's piece as being from al Jazeera.com. Huh.)
Before we dive into the errors of the illustrative map, however, let's take a moment to refresh our recollection on what Stand-Your-Ground actually means, legally speaking: it simply means that the state does not impose a legal duty on an otherwise lawful defender to make use of a safe avenue of retreat before they can use force in defense of themselves or another.
Got it? Good.
Now let's take a look at the 16 states indicated in the map as blue, and thus purportedly non-SYG that impose a legal duty retreat.